Applications to recall a witness and produce essential documents should not be rejected solely on the ground of delay, particularly when the request arises from cross-examination, as the interest of justice outweighs technicalities.

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 21.12.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCCH NO.19), ON THE IA's FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14(3) OF CPC IN O.S.NO.8307/2000 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. ALLOW THE IA's FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14(3) OF CPC IN O.S.NO.8307/2020 AND RECEIVE THE DOCUMENTS AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO GET THE SAME MARKED IN HER EVIDENCE & ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 21.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.8307/2000 by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court').

Sri.M.J.Alva, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit against the respondents herein in O.S.No.7573/2000 for declaration, mandatory injunction and other reliefs. In the said suit, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1. It is submitted that during the cross-examination, when a specific question was posed to the plaintiff with regard to certain documents, the plaintiff answered that she would place those documents before the Court. It is further submitted that in view of that specific cross-examination, applications were filed to recall PW-1 to adduce further evidence and to produce the documents. The said applications were rejected by the Trial Court solely on the ground that the applications were filed belatedly. It is also submitted that the case of the plaintiff is based on a Will executed by her father-in-law in favour of her husband. It is contended that in support of the said pleading and prayer, the documents to be produced are necessary. However, the Trial Court, without appreciating the same, has proceeded to reject the applications. Hence, he seeks to allow the applications by permitting the plaintiff to produce the documents.

Per contra, Smt.Padmavathi G.V., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 opposed the writ petition and submitted that though the petitioner-plaintiff intends to produce the partition deed and the Will, there is no sufficient pleading to that effect in the plaint. It is submitted that no reasons are forthcoming in the applications for non-production of the original documents sought to be produced and there is no application filed by the plaintiff to accept the said documents as secondary evidence. It is further submitted that the Trial Court, considering all these aspects, rejected the applications which does not call for any interference in this petition. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides.

The petitioner-plaintiff has filed O.S.No.7573/2000 for the reliefs of declaration that the plaint 'A' schedule property belonged to the plaintiff, mandatory injunction to demolish the illegal structure put up on the suit schedule 'B' portion of Schedule 'A' property and other reliefs. The respondents opposed the said suit by filing a detailed written statement. The records indicate that the respondents also filed O.S.No.8307/2000 for the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. It is informed that both the suits are being tried by the same Court. The petitioner had filed two applications, one under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the